The only issues I'm aware of the CTA having had with catenary on the Yellow Line was that it prevented through-routing and cross-line sharing of cars that are otherwise identical, adding complexity to a system that wasn't big enough to justify it.

I'm not sure how that's relevant for a line that is in no way physically cross-compatible but would be run at service levels and with fare media compatible with the rest of the CTA system and whose rolling stock would remain completely incompatible with the rest of the system. The Gray Line could justify staying physically separate but with compatible service levels and fare media because it is physically separate, and because it is far bigger than the Yellow Line in every possible way.

It would behove you to actually know who and what you're talking about before making such blanket statements that make you look ill-informed.

About the only two agencies that haven't endorsed the Gray Line are the CTA and Metra. Almost every single planning committee and agency has endorsed the idea at levels from outright recommending it be implemented to at least calling on Metra and CTA to seriously study it to be able to answer the questions that a non-insider simply doesn't have access to the information to authoritatively answer.

If you bothered to learn about the Gray Line, you'd realize that it suffers mainly from the fact that it is being advocated by an outsider and it doesn't neatly fit into existing ways of thinking of Chicago-area transit by the transit establishment and it would require two (needlessly) antagonistic agencies to actually coordinate and work together. It doesn't help matters when people don't look into what's been done for it and casually dismiss it as fringe. Again, probably because it doesn't neatly fit into the current paradigm of thinking, which scares some people.

no, I dismiss it because its a waste of money and would essentially kill any thought of CTA expansion for the next two decades. It puts and underserved line into bureaucratic limbo (always a good way to improve service), it approximately doubles the labor costs irregardless of increasing service, creates a new department in both the CTA and Metra with associated full-time employees to manage oversite and contracting services, cuts existing ridership revenue in half thanks to cheaper fares (on an already money losing line), requires a complete rebuild of every station on the line, and puts huge strain on existing CTA capital and operating budgets. All of this without dealing with the cost of transfer/lease of the system from Metra to CTA (that ain't cheap). And for what? increased frequency without showing a potential increased ridership or service area. Tell me why the CTA would want that? Let's purchase a line we did not design, plan, or build, nor will we operate, train personnel, or maintain, that has historically shown to underperform to significantly increase our overhead and hollow out our capital and operating budgets, sounds good to me.

I have a better idea, take all of this time spent talking about creating an incredibly complicated and costly system, and show Metra a ridership study for increased service and fare integration. Metra doesn't care about these things because the majority of their ridership doesn't care either.

Have you read it? The rationale is factually incorrect.

"Thanks to the high number of new passengers that would be served, and how well the line would support good land use practices and boost economic development, among other benefits,"

The proposal does not serves a single new rider, not one. Increased frequency can lead to increased overall ridership but not new service (I repeat, I'm not against increased frequency on the line, I'm arguing against the byzantine and costly way in which it would be implemented). These planning agencies are evaluating the gray line as if its a new line because that's what it's being sold as, which is misleading at best.

>> So my minimum-wage and not-all-that-smart butt somehow mesmerized or Jedi Mind Tricked the people in these organizations into supporting the plan.

>> And I want to point out that they said A L L TRANSPORTATION (not "Public Transit") Projects; which I would interpret to mean A L L (O'Hare Expansion, Thorndale Expy. and Western Bypass, CREATE, STAR Line, SES, etc., etc., etc.....), or am I misinterpreting the term "A L L" ???


>> On this page, the Chicago Metropolitan Agency for Planning (our Regional Metropolitan Planning Organization) provides a link to MY PERSONAL PRIVATE CITIZEN'S WEBSITE (See "Gray Line" under "Metra Electric District Improvements") to explain the Proposal; A L L the other links on the Page are to other Government Agencies, how exactly did I mesmerize the Extremely Intelligent people staffing our Regional MPO into including the Project in their Regional Transportation Plan??

>> http://www.cmap.illinois.gov/shared-.../project-links

>> The Gray Line is the O N L Y Major Capital Project in the CMAP RTP submitted by a Private Citizen, rather than a Transit Operator, Municipality, or Government Agency.

no, you've explicitly ignored my argument that their rationale is factually wrong. If it were a "new" service and actually cost the amount you've cited, I wouldn't be on this side of the argument. You're website and publication material specifically sells the proposal as "new" that is again, misleading at best and the low level employees at the Frontier Group in California don't really know the difference.

>> Is there any CTA 'L' Service to Hyde Park and South Shore NOW, wouldn't that type of service starting be "new"; and CTA 'L' service to the Ford Plant on 130th & Torrence would certainly be "New" - as there is N O Public Transit of any type there NOW.

>> And yes, it is branded as a "New" CTA 'L' Line - because "use your UFC to get on the Metra Electric" does not carry the same subliminal influence (especially in attracting TOD).

>> How would YOU provide improved MED service; and why don't you create a website.

Seriously? I have graduate level degrees in Civil Engineering have an understand of transit planning (not my specialty, but have taken some classes) and have worked for transit agencies on multi-billion dollar projects, and I'm not qualified to plan for the CTA, or any agency, because I don't have the necessary experience. I'm perfectly happy to critique plans from my base of knowledge, but hell if I think the CTA should make any decision based upon a dude on the internet.

>> Thank You much emathius, you express my thoughts and actions exactly.

>> I don't want to read TOO much into this - but about 2 weeks ago I had an hour long meeting with Metra's Planning Dept to discuss basic Gray Line concepts, and the upcoming RTA/CDOT South Lakefront Corridor Transit Study (which is going to be V E R Y thorough - to an Extreme Degree, I was surprised to hear just how much they are planning).

>> I AM NOT qualified to make plans for CTA or Metra either(and I have NONE of your training); but I AM QUALIFIED to make plans for underutilized infrastructure existing in M Y Community when NOBODY ELSE is going to do it (and if anybody doesn't like that - TOO BAD)

>> But I'll bet CTA can be MADE to make a decision based on the Illinois Inspector General applying Rep. Jack Frank's recently passed SB 3943 giving him Authority Over the RTA, CTA, Metra, and Pace to eliminate fraud, corruption, and W A S T E (as in the present direct competition with each other).

>> I am in communication with Rep. Franks and the IG Office.

Congrats, it's good to know that a guy with a website and the right connections can force a transit agency serving 3 million people into doing what he wants.

Some peoples minds cannot be changed, and I have learned to just accept that (and that CNT/CTAQC thing means little or nothing to you - I JMT'ed them).

What people though, the transit planners or those who have to be asked to provide the money..

When you haven't actually provided an argument for your proposal, no. We have been going back and forth now for roughly most the day and the extent of your rebuttal is to tell me who agrees with you and who you've talked to. I've gotten into arguments before with people on these boards and I typically leave them alone after a back and forth because its not productive and in the end its just people on the internet yelling, there's more than enough of that. But you are the author of this and your only defense is to point at to another person's or group's credentials. Am I seriously supposed to ignore my arguments against because a non-profit linked to your website? You are trying to spend, at least, $200 million dollars of other people's money and you can't defend it on its merits. The burden of proof is on you, but because a non-binding planning document written by a consultant in California rated your proposal highly, you're right and I'm wrong. Sometimes, when the people's mind's can't be changed it's not the people's fault.

As I suspected, the 2-track subway is less expensive than the 4-track elevated, and it's the same price as the 3-track elevated. (Otherwise why would CTA even consider a subway?)

The Scoping Book has no information about travel times. If the 2-track subway can substantially shorten up the travel times versus an elevated option, it might be worth it. Otherwise, I'd say the 3-track elevated is the better deal, provided the elevated stations are built to some basic comfort level - unlike the last round of Brown Line stations.

I'll take a value-engineered subway station over a value-engineered elevated one any day. There's no wind or freezing rain in the subway.

Personally, I think the most responsible choice is the "Renovation with Transfer Stations" option. CTA says it will only last 20 years, but that seems like a huge underestimate to me. If they suspend Purple Line service during construction, then they can completely rebuild the retaining walls with stronger tiebacks and a better blend of concrete, and it should last for another century. The steel sections should be replaced altogether to reduce the noise.

While it would be nice to be in a subway station waiting for a train during the winter, and while I generally prefer subways over elevated trains, in this instance I'd prefer the 4-track rehab as long as they created all-day express service. It's only 5% more than 3-track or subway, it creates a more true express service, and maintains more of the existing commercial-street ties to the "L" service. Plus, I think the "L" is part of what makes Chicago unique, and having outside views during the ride is a nice perk.

I think the worst possible choice would be the 3-track option if for no other reason than it has the highest operating costs, while not offering any service benefits over the 4-track option. I'd take a 5% increase in infrastructure investment for reduced operating costs and more efficient (and reliable) express service any day of the week.

What I don't quite visualize is how they would install new elevated structures. Would they build one set of tracks in the adjacent alleys and then remove the embankment and then build the third and fourth set of tracks?

Agreed—I was puzzled why they’d get rid of the embankment and replace it with a concrete structure. Also, we would be able to keep some of the historic structures without weirdly grafting them onto the new elevated structure à la 10 S. LaSalle (okay, it probably wouldn’t be that flamboyant, but it would still have an ersatz feel to it). Any word as to whether this option would have space for ten-car trains on the Red Line at some point in the future?

Some of the station consolidation did make sense, though, especially on the Evanston Branch and with Granville-Glenlake. Can they not do this in the basic rehab option because the ADA won’t allow for new narrowish stations?

There’s also the argument that you don’t need to get rid of stations. Even though it’s the least-used station on the Gold Coast Thorndale has ridership comparable to a lot of the Brown Line stations, so it would also make sense to retain it, even if you could conceptually put a new entrance a block away (and it also offers the possibility of my favorite Chicago transit idea—some kind of public art tribute to the Bob Newhart Show :D). And taking away Jarvis didn’t make much sense to me either—even with a new Howard entrance at Rogers (resulting in a platform large enough for 16-car trains, or maybe Congress-style ramps?) it still leaves a big gap in the system, and that station still gets more ridership than a lot of the remodeled elevated stations on the Cermak Branch. And I’d really love to see both local and express services preserved—the north side corridor’s really one of the few places outside New York able to support overlapping metro services like that, and I’d like to preserve that richness and build upon it.

I still really like your idea from a couple of pages back, though—having a subway between Belmont and an Ainslie-Argyle station. After all, if there’s no way to get a Brown Line flyover approved, the next best thing is to have the north side mainline fly under (and it would get rid of the Sheridan curve to boot). So, in summary, this would be my ideal plan, from north to south:

Evanston: Basic rehab, but extend platforms to allow for eight car trains and do the full modernization option for Noyes, Davis and Main

Howard-Argyle: Basic rehab with Loyola transfer station, maybe consolidating Granville and Thorndale into Granville-Glenlake.

Argyle-Belmont: Do full rehab at Argyle to make new Ainslie-Argyle station, then merge Red and Purple lines to go underground to a new tunnel with stations at Wilson, Irving Park and Addison before rising again to Belmont, getting rid of the Clark Junction.

South of Belmont: Run both through the middle tracks of the four-track segment to the State Street subway, with the Red Line going south along the Dan Ryan and Purple Line going Southwest to Midway, replacing the Orange Line.

>> You are correct we have been going back and forth all day, I was trying to explain the reasons for my actions to you; BUT - I actually don't have to defend or prove anything to anybody, I could have just politely said "Thank you for your comments" and left it at that - but I was raised better.

>> I will consider your input, but it doesn't change my thinking, actions, or goals. Also past and present heads of CMAP and the RTA have told me to NEVER stop what I'm doing because Common Sense will eventually overcome political B/S.

>> CMAP is not a California entity, it is the Government Certified MPO for the NE Illinois Region - so how will you pass-off them carrying MY website and including the project in the RTP??

I'm going to say this and walk away because I've taken up too much of this board space already.

So, after an entire day of pressure, where you could have provided transit studies and ridership numbers and cost figures, you're final argument is this:

"I can spend $200 million of other people's money and not be accountable."

congrats, you're in a place we all aspire to be.

>> N O T H I N G _ I could show, do, say, or link to would in ANY way change your mind - so what would be the point. Walk away - good luck (but the board is here for intelligent conversation).


>> btw: Why don't you attend Metra's Electrification Conference ($75); I am registered, and we can discuss it directly (peacefully): http://www.tflex.org/default.asp

>> btw II: Here is a Commentary I did in 1998 on an RTA Ridership Study; I didn't mention it because I do not have the original RTA Report
that it refers to, so it doesn't mean much standing alone: http://www.box.net/shared/9eogms6vco

whoa! maybe I've had this wrong, was this all a joke? have I completely misread this? if this is a meta-internet joke... good job, I was fooled. I mean arguing with me about spending actual people's money without feeling the need to defend it by not providing a single figure or fact to support it. Brilliant work playing the "nobody could convince you" angle, complete cop-out but totally makes sense within the joke. I'm sorry, I was wrong, didn't catch it right away, it was an internet joke. I can't believe I actually caved and argued for the Gray Line back in '07 on this board, that was before I got the joke, sorry, kind of embarrassed...